Hi Michael, hi all, I believe there is actually quite a bit of discussion currently in MPTCP about how important it probably is to have an interface to the application and get input about upper layer preferences. Maybe ask on the mptcp list for input?
Mirja > Am 19.07.2016 um 09:49 schrieb Aaron Falk <[email protected]>: > > Hi Michael- > > It seems to me that one could answer the question separately whether the > upper layer should be able to control the use of multi-streaming or > multi-paths vs. know whether multi-streaming or multi-paths are in use. I > would think that there no reason to hide this information from apps. would > you agree? > > --aaron > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 9:22 AM Michael Welzl <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > draft-gjessing-taps-minset-02 suggests that all transport service > features related to multi-streaming and usage of multiple paths are > “automatable”. The rationale is given in Section 4: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gjessing-taps-minset-02#section-4 > (this particular section says “removed” which is a mistake, to be fixed > in the next update; sorry! - read as “classified as automatable”) > > Note that abstraction always comes with loss of some control, that’s > inevitable. It has to hurt a little bit :-) > - our thinking is that none of these transport service features require > application-specific knowledge and hence shouldn’t be exposed. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps > -- > --aaron > > =====Short message from my phone===== > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
